Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Motion Planning Diffusion: Learning and Adapting Robot Motion Planning with Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sampling robot trajectories from a diffusion posterior, with cost gradients injected during denoising, yields diverse, feasible, collision-free motions that outperform sampling-then-optimizing and sampling-based…

desk verdict Solid, well-executed incremental extension of the authors' IROS 2023 diffusion planner; the main quantitative claim needs one more ablation before the paper can fully support it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19948 v3 pith:YGMC4CKV submitted 2024-12-27 cs.RO

J. Carvalho , A. Le , P. Kicki , D. Koert , J. Peters This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords Diffusionmodelsrobotmotionplanningcost-guidedsamplingB-splinetrajectoryrepresentationpriorsasinferencelearningfromdemonstrationmultimodaltrajectories
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces Motion Planning Diffusion (MPD), which treats robot motion planning as sampling from a posterior distribution over trajectories: a diffusion model learns a prior over B-spline control points from previously solved plans or human demonstrations, and at inference time cost gradients for collisions, joint limits, and end-effector goals are interleaved with the denoising steps. The central claim is that this interleaving, cost-guided posterior sampling, produces trajectories that stay close to the learned prior while being collision-free, and that it beats the two obvious alternatives: first sampling from the prior and then optimizing the cost, and running a sampling-based planner followed by trajectory optimization. The experiments span 2D point-mass tasks, planar arms, a 7-dof manipulator, and a real pick-and-place task with new obstacles. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach offers motion planning that becomes faster with experience, reproduces demonstrated styles, and retains diversity instead of collapsing to one solution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are a denoising diffusion probabilistic model used as a prior over trajectories, the B-spline parametrization $q(s)=B(s)w$ in which diffusion operates on control points $w$ rather than waypoints, and the classifier-guidance update $\mu_z = \mu_i + \Sigma_i g$, with the covariance dropped and a trust-region clipping $\delta$, which injects cost gradients into each denoising step. The B-spline basis, precomputed over a phase variable, enforces boundary velocities and accelerations and gives smoothness by construction; cost gradients are computed through the forward-kinematics Jacobian and the signed distance field. The combination lets a single denoising process both propose and repair trajectories.

What would settle it

Run MPD on a task where new obstacles are placed so that every prior trajectory passes through them, then compare the fraction of valid trajectories when guidance is interleaved (MPD) versus applied only after sampling (Dprior+Cost); a narrow gap would mean the guided update is not doing the claimed work. Also compare the guided sample mean against a Monte Carlo estimate of the posterior mean at early denoising steps to test the Gaussian approximation directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that blending optimization into the reverse diffusion process is better than separating it. MPD samples from $p(\tau_0|O) \propto p(O|\tau_0)p(\tau_0)$ by approximating the task log-likelihood with a first-order Taylor expansion around the diffusion prior mean and taking a few clipped gradient steps at each of the last denoising steps; this keeps samples on the learned trajectory manifold while steering them away from collisions. The authors argue and demonstrate that when a whole trajectory is in collision, a post-hoc optimizer often cannot escape, whereas guidance during denoising moves the trajectory before it has fully formed, yielding more valid and more diverse trajectories. They also show that learning in the space of B-spline control points rather than dense waypoints guarantees smoothness and reduces the denoising network's input size, and that in their hardest 7-dof task with unseen obstacles, batch sampling with MPD achieves 97 percent success with shorter, lower-variance paths than one RRT-Connect sample with cost optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The method works only if the first-order Taylor approximation of the collision likelihood around the diffusion prior mean stays accurate enough to steer samples toward free space, even though the collision cost is a non-smooth ReLU of signed distance and early denoising samples are very noisy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a robot that has seen similar tasks can plan by flashing a batch of noisy control points through a conditional U-Net with cost guidance, replacing slow sampling-based search with a GPU-parallel denoising pass.
  • Prior-guided planning preserves multimodality: the same start and goal produces several distinct valid trajectories, which is useful when a user or a higher-level task planner wants choices.
  • Learning from human demonstrations becomes directly usable for collision avoidance: trajectories stay near the demonstrated style while adapting to new obstacles, as shown in the pick-and-place experiments.
  • Smoothness is guaranteed by the trajectory representation rather than by post-hoc smoothing, so fewer extra optimization steps are needed, and the denoising network processes smaller inputs than a dense waypoint vector.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's batch-scaling result suggests an extension: because denoising a batch costs nearly the same as denoising one sample on a GPU, increasing the batch size should raise success rate in harder tasks too, provided cost-gradient computation remains the bottleneck.
  • The first-order guidance approximation should degrade most when new obstacles force trajectories through regions the prior has never seen; a testable extension is to move obstacles gradually away from the training distribution and measure the validity gap between MPD and Dprior+Cost.
  • Because the diffusion operates on control points while costs are evaluated on dense interpolated points, one could learn a separate B-spline for the phase-time derivative to also optimize trajectory duration, a future direction the paper names.
  • For structurally changing environments, the paper's single-scene specialization suggests that a conditional prior over environment encodings is the next step; the current method is best seen as a building block for that rather than a general cross-scene planner.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Motion Planning Diffusion (MPD), a method that learns a diffusion prior over B-spline control points of robot trajectories, conditioned on start and goal configurations or end-effector poses. At inference, MPD uses classifier-style cost guidance during DDIM denoising to sample from an approximate posterior that balances the learned prior against planning costs such as collision avoidance, joint limits, and task-pose error. The method is evaluated on six simulated planning tasks and a real-world pick-and-place task learned from human demonstrations, with comparisons against CVAE, a Gaussian-process prior, and sampling-then-optimizing baselines. The central claim is that interleaving cost gradients with denoising (MPD) yields more valid and more diverse trajectories than first sampling from the prior and then optimizing the cost (Dprior+Cost).

Significance. If the central claim is established, MPD would be a useful contribution: it combines a standard, well-understood classifier-guidance mechanism with a B-spline trajectory representation that reduces dimensionality and guarantees smoothness, and it demonstrates adaptation to out-of-distribution obstacles and to human demonstrations. The empirical scope is broad and the paper is clearly written. However, the key comparison against Dprior+Cost is confounded by mismatched inference hyperparameters, and the statistical strength of the reported differences is not quantified. The theoretical derivation is mostly a replication of known classifier guidance; the novelty lies in the B-spline representation and in the empirical study. The paper would be substantially strengthened by isolating the effect of interleaving from the effects of the trust region and prior-temperature regularization, and by reporting confidence intervals or significance tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B and Section IV-E, Algorithm 2 / Appendix B] The central empirical claim is that MPD's interleaved cost guidance outperforms sampling from the diffusion prior and then optimizing the cost (Dprior+Cost). However, the two procedures differ in more than the timing of guidance. MPD uses lambda_prior=0.25 (Algorithm 2, Appendix B), applies guidance only on the last icost=3 of 15 DDIM steps, and uses a trust-region delta=0.15 (Eq. (15), Algorithm 2 lines 13-14). Dprior+Cost is described only as 'sampling first from the prior and then optimizing the cost function' with the same number of cost-optimization steps, but the description does not include the trust region or the prior-temperature weighting. Thus the reported advantages in fraction valid and diversity (e.g., 73.5% vs. 18.4% for Dprior, and 74.8 vs. 66.0 for Dprior+Cost in EnvWarehouse-RobotPanda) could be caused by these regularizers rather than by temporal interleaving. The illustrative comparison in Section IV-E has the same confound. To support the paper's main conclusion, please add an ablation that gives the post-hoc optimizer the same trust region and prior-temperature weighting, and/or removes them from MPD, so that the only remaining difference is the interleaving schedule.
  2. [Section IV-D, Fig. 6, Section IV-C] The empirical support for the performance claims is weakened by the absence of confidence intervals or significance tests. All numerical claims are based on means over 100 contexts, but the swarm plots in Fig. 6 show substantial overlap between methods in several tasks (e.g., Dprior and CVAE success rates in EnvWarehouse-RobotPanda are both around 97%). Additionally, the success-rate metric defined in Section IV-C is very permissive: it counts a context as successful if at least one of 100 sampled trajectories is valid. This saturates the metric and can mask large differences in the fraction of valid trajectories. Please report confidence intervals, standard errors, or paired statistical tests across contexts, and consider reporting success rates for smaller batch sizes (e.g., 1, 10) to complement the fraction-valid metric.
  3. [Section III-D, Eq. (12)] The derivation of the guided posterior relies on a first-order Taylor expansion of log p(O|tau_{i-1}) around the prior mean mu_i (Eq. (12)). The main planning objective, the collision cost C_env(x_m)=ReLU(-SDF(x_m)+r_m+epsilon) from Section III-G, is not smooth: its gradient is zero outside the safety margin and changes discontinuously at the boundary. Consequently, if the denoising mean mu_i lies outside the margin, the computed gradient g is zero, and the guidance step provides no collision signal even if the actual sample tau_{i-1} is in collision. Since the claimed advantage of MPD over Dprior+Cost depends precisely on the usefulness of these interleaved gradients, the validity of the Taylor approximation in the operating regime is load-bearing. The paper does not provide a diagnostic for this issue, such as an ablation over icost and delta, a comparison of guided samples with a more exact posterior approximation, or a study of gradient norms during denoising. Please add such an analysis to justify the approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 2 and Appendix B] The prior-temperature schedule is unclear. Algorithm 2 sets lambda_prior=1 for i > icost and otherwise leaves it at the input value (0.25 per Appendix B), but the text and Appendix B do not explain this schedule. Please state explicitly whether lambda_prior=0.25 applies only to the guided steps or to all DDIM steps, and justify the choice.
  2. [Section IV-D, Fig. 8] In the comparison against RRT-Connect plus cost optimization, the text says MPD leads to 'faster and better planning results,' but Fig. 8 shows RRTC+Cost achieves 100% success while MPD-1 achieves only 48% success. The claim should be qualified to indicate that MPD reaches comparable or better success only with sufficiently large batches (e.g., MPD-100).
  3. [Section IV-E, Fig. 11] The illustrative toy experiment in Fig. 11 motivates the central claim but is reported only visually, without quantitative success rates, fraction valid, or diversity values. Please add numbers for this example, or clearly label it as an illustrative intuition rather than evidence.
  4. [Table I] The real-world experiment reports one row per method but does not state the number of test contexts or trials, nor any measure of variability. Please report the number of contexts and, where possible, confidence intervals or per-context results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained and the empirical claims are tested against external baselines.

full rationale

MPD's derivation chain is not circular. The core posterior-sampling update (Eqs. 8-17) is explicitly presented as a replication of the classifier-guidance proof from Dhariwal and Nichol, with the Taylor approximation and score-to-noise rescaling stated as assumptions rather than as results derived from the method's own outputs. The B-spline trajectory parametrization is defined by standard spline equations (Eqs. 19-26) and its smoothness follows from the spline degree, not from a fitted quantity being renamed as a prediction. Training minimizes the standard DDPM denoising objective (Eq. 7) on control points fit from RRT-Connect paths and demonstrations, and the evaluation compares against external baselines (GPprior+Cost, CVAE, Dprior, Dprior+Cost) on held-out contexts and new obstacles. The paper cites the authors' own IROS paper and Kicki's B-spline work, but these citations are background or prior-method references, not load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The comparison against Dprior+Cost does vary the trust-region and prior-temperature hyperparameters simultaneously, which is an experimental confound that should be addressed by an ablation, but it does not make the claim circular: MPD's output is not defined in terms of Dprior+Cost's output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The first-order Taylor approximation of the non-smooth collision cost is a stated modeling assumption that may limit validity, but an inaccurate approximation is an error mode, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on established diffusion and B-spline mathematics, plus several domain assumptions about fixed duration, sphere-based collision checking, and the validity of the first-order Taylor guidance approximation. No new physical entities are introduced. The hand-tuned hyperparameters are the main ad hoc choices that the empirical results depend on.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_prior = 0.25
    Prior temperature in Algorithm 2 and Appendix B; controls the influence of the diffusion prior relative to cost. Authors report good values in [0.25, 0.5].
  • Cost weights (collision, joint limits, task, velocity, acceleration) = 0.9, 0.5, 0.5, 0.2, 0.2
    Weights for the motion planning costs in Table III; described as task-dependent but not algorithm-dependent, and chosen by hand.
  • Trust region delta = 0.15
    Limits how far the cost-guided mean can deviate from the prior mean in Eq. (15); chosen by hand and used in Algorithm 2.
  • Number of B-spline control points per task = 22, 30, 22, 22, 30, 22 (per environment)
    Selected so that after fitting a 5th order B-spline to RRT-Connect paths, over 99% of paths are collision-free with minimal collision rate (Appendix A).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math B-spline basis functions and derivative formulas are valid and smoothness is guaranteed.
    Used in Section III-E to parametrize trajectories and compute smoothness costs; standard results from de Boor and Piegl/Tiller.
  • standard math DDPM training and classifier-guided sampling derivations are correct.
    The posterior sampling update in Section III-D is replicated from Dhariwal and Nichol [23] and Ho et al. [17].
  • domain assumption Fixed trajectory duration and linear phase-time scaling.
    Section III-E assumes a fixed duration T and linear relation s = t/T, which the authors list as a limitation (Section V). Joint velocity and acceleration limits then scale with T and T^2.
  • ad hoc to paper First-order Taylor approximation of the task log-likelihood is accurate.
    Eq. (12) approximates log p(O|tau_{i-1}) by its first-order Taylor expansion around the prior mean mu_i. This is load-bearing for cost-guided sampling and is taken from [23] without additional validation for non-smooth collision costs.
  • domain assumption Sphere-based robot model and voxel SDF are sufficient for collision cost gradients.
    Section III-G represents the robot as a set of spheres and the environment by a voxel SDF. This approximation is standard but limits the fidelity of collision costs.
  • domain assumption Training with one trajectory per context transfers multimodality to new contexts.
    Section IV-D and Figure 9 report multimodal outputs for contexts not seen in training despite one training trajectory per context; this generalization is an empirical assumption rather than a guaranteed property.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Motion Planning Diffusion: Learning and Adapting Robot Motion Planning with Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGMC4CKV

@misc{pith2026241219948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Motion Planning Diffusion: Learning and Adapting Robot Motion Planning with Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGMC4CKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19948}
}
read the original abstract

The performance of optimization-based robot motion planning algorithms is highly dependent on the initial solutions, commonly obtained by running a sampling-based planner to obtain a collision-free path. However, these methods can be slow in high-dimensional and complex scenes and produce non-smooth solutions. Given previously solved path-planning problems, it is highly desirable to learn their distribution and use it as a prior for new similar problems. Several works propose utilizing this prior to bootstrap the motion planning problem, either by sampling initial solutions from it, or using its distribution in a maximum-a-posterior formulation for trajectory optimization. In this work, we introduce Motion Planning Diffusion (MPD), an algorithm that learns trajectory distribution priors with diffusion models. These generative models have shown increasing success in encoding multimodal data and have desirable properties for gradient-based motion planning, such as cost guidance. Given a motion planning problem, we construct a cost function and sample from the posterior distribution using the learned prior combined with the cost function gradients during the denoising process. Instead of learning the prior on all trajectory waypoints, we propose learning a lower-dimensional representation of a trajectory using linear motion primitives, particularly B-spline curves. This parametrization guarantees that the generated trajectory is smooth, can be interpolated at higher frequencies, and needs fewer parameters than a dense waypoint representation. We demonstrate the results of our method ranging from simple 2D to more complex tasks using a 7-dof robot arm manipulator. In addition to learning from simulated data, we also use human demonstrations on a real-world pick-and-place task.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19948 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. These figures illustrate the need for using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of inference using Motion Planning Diffusion. An initial joint position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figures show the resulting trajectories when using linear phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the Franka Emika Panda finite collision spheres model (right) used for faster collision cost computations. smallest signed Euclidean distance between a point in space x ∈ R 3 and the closest surface (negative if inside an obstacle, and positive otherwi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The environments used for the motion planning experiments, with different robot models and increasing complexity. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance metrics for different algorithms on the tasks from fig. 5. The results report the swarm plot of sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Computation times breakdown for sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Top) Task-space trajectories generated by MPD in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of multimodal trajectories executed in the warehouse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: MPD results in the EnvSimple2D-RobotPointMass2D task using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (Top) Human demonstrations via kinesthetic teaching for a pick-and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Computation times for denoising a batch of 1000 trajecto￾ries with B-splines and dense Way￾points using H = 128 and d = 7 with 15 steps of DDIM. The figures show that even though the waypoint represen￾tation can generate valid trajec￾tories, they are not smooth, as ca…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (a) As the demonstrations did not include the objects placed on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Joint Model-based Model-free Diffusion for Planning with Constraints

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JM2D samples diffusion plans and safety-filter corrections jointly using a single importance-sampling-guided diffusion process, improving task success and reducing safety-filter interventions.

  2. Simultaneous Multi-Robot Motion Planning with Projected Diffusion Models

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SMD couples diffusion trajectory generation with an augmented-Lagrangian projection loop, yielding collision-free, kinematically feasible multi-robot plans with 96-100% success on the introduced benchmark.

  3. Leveraging OS-Level Primitives for Robotic Action Management

    cs.OS 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Applying OS-style exception handling, context caching, and replay to robotic action slices raises success rates 7x to 24x and cuts execution steps up to 74% for repetitive manipulation tasks, without retraining the VLA model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S. M. LaValle, Planning Algorithms . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  2. [2]

    Chomp: Gradient optimization tech- niques for efficient motion planning,

    N. Ratliff, M. Zucker, et al. , “Chomp: Gradient optimization tech- niques for efficient motion planning,” in IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation , 2009

    2009

  3. [3]

    Continuous-time gaussian process motion planning via probabilistic inference,

    M. Mukadam, J. Dong, et al. , “Continuous-time gaussian process motion planning via probabilistic inference,” Int. J. Robotics Res. , vol. 37, no. 11, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Finding locally optimal, collision-free trajectories with sequential convex optimization,

    J. Schulman, J. Ho, et al. , “Finding locally optimal, collision-free trajectories with sequential convex optimization,” in Robotics: Science and Systems IX , 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,

    J. Kuffner and S. LaValle, “Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,” in IEEE ICRA, 2000

    2000

  6. [6]

    Efficient robot motion planning via sampling and optimization,

    J. E. Leu, G. Zhang, et al. , “Efficient robot motion planning via sampling and optimization,” in 2021 American Control Conference, ACC 2021, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 25-28, 2021 , IEEE, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Learning from experience in manipulation planning: Setting the right goals,

    A. D. Dragan, G. J. Gordon, et al. , “Learning from experience in manipulation planning: Setting the right goals,” in Robotics Research : The 15th International Symposium ISRR , H. I. Christensen and O. Khatib, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Memory of motion for initializing optimization in robotics,

    T. S. Lembono, “Memory of motion for initializing optimization in robotics,” en, Ph.D. dissertation, EPFL, Lausanne, 2022

    2022

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Memory of motion for warm- starting trajectory optimization,

    T. S. Lembono, A. Paolillo, et al. , “Memory of motion for warm- starting trajectory optimization,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 2, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Demonstration based trajectory optimiza- tion for generalizable robot motions,

    D. Koert, G. Maeda, et al., “Demonstration based trajectory optimiza- tion for generalizable robot motions,” in IEEE-RAS Humanoids, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Towards robust skill generalization: Unifying learning from demonstration and motion planning,

    M. A. Rana, M. Mukadam, et al., “Towards robust skill generalization: Unifying learning from demonstration and motion planning,” in CoRL, PMLR, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    K. P. Murphy, Probabilistic Machine Learning: An introduction. MIT Press, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Efficient gradient-free variational infer- ence using policy search,

    O. Arenz, M. Zhong, et al., “Efficient gradient-free variational infer- ence using policy search,” in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , vol. 80, PMLR, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” in 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations , 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Generative adversarial nets,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, et al., “Generative adversarial nets,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 27, Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    A tutorial on energy-based learning,

    Y . Lecun, S. Chopra, et al. , “A tutorial on energy-based learning,” English (US), in Predicting structured data . MIT Press, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, et al. , “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in NeurIPS, Curran Associates Inc., 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, et al. , “Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Wasserstein generative adversarial networks,

    M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, et al. , “Wasserstein generative adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, vol. 70, PMLR, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Implicit behavioral cloning,

    P. Florence, C. Lynch, et al., “Implicit behavioral cloning,” Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2021. SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS 19

    2021

  13. [21]

    A study on sample diversity in generative models: Gans vs. diffusion models,

    R. Bayat, “A study on sample diversity in generative models: Gans vs. diffusion models,” in The First Tiny Papers Track at ICLR , OpenReview.net, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Multimodal trajectory optimization for motion planning,

    T. Osa, “Multimodal trajectory optimization for motion planning,” Int. J. Robotics Res. , vol. 39, no. 8, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,

    P. Dhariwal and A. Q. Nichol, “Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,” in NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models,

    J. Carvalho, A. T. Le, et al. , “Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models,” in IROS, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Probabilistic roadmaps for path plan- ning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,

    L. Kavraki, P. Svestka, et al., “Probabilistic roadmaps for path plan- ning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    S. M. Lavalle, Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning, 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 30, no. 7, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Informed rrt*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,

    J. D. Gammell, S. S. Srinivasa, et al. , “Informed rrt*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Batch informed trees (bit*): Informed asymptotically optimal anytime search,

    J. D. Gammell, T. D. Barfoot, et al. , “Batch informed trees (bit*): Informed asymptotically optimal anytime search,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 5, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics,

    M. P. Strub and J. D. Gammell, “Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2020, Paris, France, May 31 - August 31, 2020 , IEEE, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Path smoothing techniques in robot navigation: State-of-the-art, current and future challenges,

    A. A. Ravankar, A. A. Ravankar, et al., “Path smoothing techniques in robot navigation: State-of-the-art, current and future challenges,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 9, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    A generalized path integral control approach to reinforcement learning,

    E. Theodorou, J. Buchli, et al. , “A generalized path integral control approach to reinforcement learning,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. , vol. 11, Dec. 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Stomp: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning,

    M. Kalakrishnan, S. Chitta, et al. , “Stomp: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Learning implicit priors for motion optimiza- tion,

    J. Urain, A. Le, et al., “Learning implicit priors for motion optimiza- tion,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Mixtures of gaussian processes for robot motion planning using stochastic trajectory optimization,

    L. Petrovi ´c, I. Markovi ´c, et al. , “Mixtures of gaussian processes for robot motion planning using stochastic trajectory optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Accelerating motion planning via optimal transport,

    A. T. Le, G. Chalvatzaki, et al. , “Accelerating motion planning via optimal transport,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Policies based on trajectory li- braries,

    M. Stolle and C. G. Atkeson, “Policies based on trajectory li- braries,” in Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , IEEE, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Standing balance control using a trajectory library,

    C. Liu and C. G. Atkeson, “Standing balance control using a trajectory library,” in 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , IEEE, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Using a memory of motion to efficiently warm-start a nonlinear predictive controller,

    N. Mansard, A. DelPrete, et al. , “Using a memory of motion to efficiently warm-start a nonlinear predictive controller,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2018, Brisbane, Australia, May 21-25, 2018 , IEEE, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    On-line motion synthesis and adaptation using a trajectory database,

    D. Forte, A. Gams, et al. , “On-line motion synthesis and adaptation using a trajectory database,” Robotics Auton. Syst. , vol. 60, no. 10, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Trajectory planning for optimal robot catching in real-time,

    R. Lampariello, D. Nguyen-Tuong, et al. , “Trajectory planning for optimal robot catching in real-time,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , IEEE, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    Variational inference mpc using normal- izing flows and out-of-distribution projection,

    T. Power and D. Berenson, “Variational inference mpc using normal- izing flows and out-of-distribution projection,” Robotics: Science and Systems 2022., 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    An algorithmic perspective on imitation learning,

    T. Osa, J. Pajarinen, et al., “An algorithmic perspective on imitation learning,” Found. Trends Robotics, vol. 7, no. 1-2, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Relative entropy policy search,

    J. Peters, K. M ¨ulling, et al., “Relative entropy policy search,” in AAAI, AAAI Press, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors,

    A. Graikos, N. Malkin, et al. , “Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Kapelyukh, V

    I. Kapelyukh, V . V osylius, et al. , Dall-e-bot: Introducing web-scale diffusion models to robotics , 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Ramesh et al., Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents, 2022

    A. Ramesh et al., Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    W. Liu, T. Hermans, et al. , Structdiffusion: Object-centric diffusion for semantic rearrangement of novel objects , 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Se(3)-diffusionfields: Learning smooth cost functions for joint grasp and motion optimization through diffusion,

    J. Urain, N. Funk, et al., “Se(3)-diffusionfields: Learning smooth cost functions for joint grasp and motion optimization through diffusion,” in IEEE ICRA, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Dexdiffuser: Generating dexterous grasps with diffusion models,

    Z. Weng, H. Lu, et al. , “Dexdiffuser: Generating dexterous grasps with diffusion models,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Dexgrasp-diffusion: Diffusion-based uni- fied functional grasp synthesis pipeline for multi-dexterous robotic hands,

    Z. Zhang, L. Zhou, et al., “Dexgrasp-diffusion: Diffusion-based uni- fied functional grasp synthesis pipeline for multi-dexterous robotic hands,” CoRR, vol. abs/2407.09899, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis,

    M. Janner, Y . Du, et al., “Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis,” in ICML, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, S. Feng, et al., “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” in Robotics: Science and Systems XIX, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 10-14, 2023 , 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Goal-conditioned imitation learning using score-based diffusion policies,

    M. Reuss, M. Li, et al. , “Goal-conditioned imitation learning using score-based diffusion policies,” in Robotics: Science and Systems XIX, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 10-14, 2023 , 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations,

    Y . Ze, G. Zhang,et al., “3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations,

    T.-W. Ke, N. Gkanatsios, et al. , “3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations,” in Conference on Robot Learning , PMLR, 2025, pp. 1949–1974

    2025

  49. [57]

    Language-guided object-centric diffusion policy for collision-aware robotic manipulation,

    Q. Feng, H. Li, et al. , “Language-guided object-centric diffusion policy for collision-aware robotic manipulation,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Language-guided manipulation with diffusion policies and constrained inpainting,

    C. Hao, K. Lin, et al., “Language-guided manipulation with diffusion policies and constrained inpainting,” CoRR, vol. abs/2406.09767, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cobl-diffusion: Diffusion-based conditional robot planning in dynamic environments using control barrier and lyapunov functions,

    K. Mizuta and K. Leung, “Cobl-diffusion: Diffusion-based conditional robot planning in dynamic environments using control barrier and lyapunov functions,” CoRR, vol. abs/2406.05309, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Equivariant diffusion policy,

    D. Wang, S. Hart, et al., “Equivariant diffusion policy,” in Conference on Robot Learning , PMLR, 2025, pp. 48–69

    2025

  53. [61]

    Equibot: Sim (3)-equivariant diffusion policy for generalizable and data efficient learning,

    J. Yang, Z. Cao, et al., “Equibot: Sim (3)-equivariant diffusion policy for generalizable and data efficient learning,” in CoRL 2024 Workshop on Whole-body Control and Bimanual Manipulation: Applications in Humanoids and Beyond

    2024

  54. [62]

    Subgoal diffuser: Coarse-to-fine subgoal generation to guide model predictive control for robot manipulation,

    Z. Huang, Y . Lin, et al. , “Subgoal diffuser: Coarse-to-fine subgoal generation to guide model predictive control for robot manipulation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Movement primitive diffusion: Learning gentle robotic manipulation of deformable objects,

    P. M. Scheikl, N. Schreiber, et al. , “Movement primitive diffusion: Learning gentle robotic manipulation of deformable objects,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 9, no. 6, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Prodmp: A unified perspective on dynamic and probabilistic movement primitives,

    G. Li, Z. Jin, et al. , “Prodmp: A unified perspective on dynamic and probabilistic movement primitives,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 4, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    EDMP: ensemble-of-costs-guided diffusion for motion planning,

    K. Saha, V . R. Mandadi, et al. , “EDMP: ensemble-of-costs-guided diffusion for motion planning,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , IEEE, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Sampling constrained trajectories using composable diffusion models,

    T. Power, R. Soltani-Zarrin, et al., “Sampling constrained trajectories using composable diffusion models,” in IROS 2023 Workshop on Differentiable Probabilistic Robotics: Emerging Perspectives on Robot Learning, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Safediffuser: Safe planning with diffu- sion probabilistic models,

    W. Xiao, T.-H. Wang, et al., “Safediffuser: Safe planning with diffu- sion probabilistic models,” in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

  60. [68]

    Apex: Ambidextrous dual-arm robotic manipulation using collision-free generative diffusion models,

    A. Dastider, H. Fang, et al. , “Apex: Ambidextrous dual-arm robotic manipulation using collision-free generative diffusion models,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2024, pp. 9526–9533

    2024

  61. [69]

    Conditioned score-based models for learning collision-free trajectory generation,

    J. Carvalho, M. Baierl, et al. , “Conditioned score-based models for learning collision-free trajectory generation,” in NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Score-Based Methods , 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Potential based diffusion motion planning,

    Y . Luo, C. Sun, et al. , “Potential based diffusion motion planning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    Huang, Z

    S. Huang, Z. Wang, et al., Diffusion-based generation, optimization, and planning in 3d scenes , 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Diffusionseeder: Seeding motion optimization with diffusion for rapid motion planning,

    H. Huang, B. Sundaralingam, et al., “Diffusionseeder: Seeding motion optimization with diffusion for rapid motion planning,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Motion policy networks,

    A. Fishman, A. Murali, et al., “Motion policy networks,” in Proceed- ings of the 6th Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives,

    S. Teng, X. Hu, et al. , “Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 6, 2023. SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS 20

    2023

  67. [75]

    Scenecontrol: Diffusion for controllable traffic scene generation,

    J. Lu, K. Wong, et al., “Scenecontrol: Diffusion for controllable traffic scene generation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    CGD: constraint-guided diffusion policies for UA V trajectory planning,

    K. Kondo, A. Tagliabue, et al. , “CGD: constraint-guided diffusion policies for UA V trajectory planning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2405.01758, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Diffusion-es: Gradient-free planning with diffusion for autonomous and instruction-guided driving,

    B. Yang, H. Su, et al. , “Diffusion-es: Gradient-free planning with diffusion for autonomous and instruction-guided driving,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Dipper: Diffusion-based 2d path planner applied on legged robots,

    J. Liu, M. Stamatopoulou, et al. , “Dipper: Diffusion-based 2d path planner applied on legged robots,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , IEEE, 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    Dippest: Diffusion-based path planner for synthesizing trajectories applied on quadruped robots,

    M. Stamatopoulou, J. Liu, et al. , “Dippest: Diffusion-based path planner for synthesizing trajectories applied on quadruped robots,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2024, pp. 7787–7793

    2024

  72. [80]

    Urain, A

    J. Urain, A. Mandlekar, et al., Deep generative models in robotics: A survey on learning from multimodal demonstrations , 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian opti- mization for motion planning,

    M. Zucker, N. Ratliff, et al. , “Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian opti- mization for motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 9-10, 2013

    2013

  74. [82]

    Planning by probabilistic inference,

    H. Attias, “Planning by probabilistic inference,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , vol. R4, PMLR, 2003

    2003

  75. [83]

    Robot trajectory optimization using approximate in- ference,

    M. Toussaint, “Robot trajectory optimization using approximate in- ference,” in ICML, Association for Computing Machinery, 2009

    2009

  76. [84]

    A gaussian variational inference approach to motion planning,

    H. Yu and Y . Chen, “A gaussian variational inference approach to motion planning,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 5, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,” in NeurIPS, 2019

    2019

  78. [86]

    Improved denoising diffusion proba- bilistic models,

    A. Q. Nichol and P. Dhariwal, “Improved denoising diffusion proba- bilistic models,” in ICML, PMLR, 2021

    2021

  79. [87]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. A. Weiss, et al. , “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,” in ICML, JMLR.org, 2015

    2015

  80. [88]

    Luo, Understanding diffusion models: A unified perspective , 2022

    C. Luo, Understanding diffusion models: A unified perspective , 2022

    2022

  81. [89]

    Is conditional generative modeling all you need for decision making?

    A. Ajay, Y . Du, et al. , “Is conditional generative modeling all you need for decision making?” In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , OpenReview.net, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Elucidating the design space of classifier- guided diffusion generation,

    J. Ma, T. Hu, et al. , “Elucidating the design space of classifier- guided diffusion generation,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Guided conditional diffusion for control- lable traffic simulation,

    Z. Zhong, D. Rempe, et al., “Guided conditional diffusion for control- lable traffic simulation,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  84. [92]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, et al. , “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , OpenRe- view.net, 2021

    2021

  85. [93]

    Fast kinodynamic planning on the constraint manifold with deep neural networks,

    P. Kicki, P. Liu, et al., “Fast kinodynamic planning on the constraint manifold with deep neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Robotics, vol. 40, 2024

    2024

  86. [94]

    Package for calculating with b-splines,

    C. de Boor, “Package for calculating with b-splines,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , vol. 14, no. 3, 1977

    1977

  87. [95]

    Shene, Derivatives of a B-spline Curve — pages.mtu.edu , https: / / pages

    C.-K. Shene, Derivatives of a B-spline Curve — pages.mtu.edu , https: / / pages . mtu . edu /∼shene / COURSES / cs3621 / NOTES / spline / B - spline/bspline-derv.html, [Accessed 24-09-2024]

    2024

  88. [96]

    Bridging the gap between learning-to-plan, motion primitives and safe reinforcement learning,

    P. Kicki, D. Tateo, et al., “Bridging the gap between learning-to-plan, motion primitives and safe reinforcement learning,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  89. [97]

    L. A. Piegl and W. Tiller, The NURBS Book . Springer, 1995

    1995

  90. [98]

    Using probabilistic movement prim- itives in robotics,

    A. Paraschos, C. Daniel, et al., “Using probabilistic movement prim- itives in robotics,” Auton. Robots, vol. 42, no. 3, 2018

    2018

  91. [99]

    A unified and elegant derivation of b ´ezier, b-spline, and other CAGD concepts: B ´ezier and b-spline techniques,

    W. Tiller, “A unified and elegant derivation of b ´ezier, b-spline, and other CAGD concepts: B ´ezier and b-spline techniques,” Comput. Aided Des., vol. 36, no. 1, 2004

    2004

  92. [100]

    Film: Visual reasoning with a general condi- tioning layer,

    E. Perez, F. Strub, et al., “Film: Visual reasoning with a general condi- tioning layer,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , AAAI Press, 2018

    2018

  93. [101]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” in NeurIPS, Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    2019

  94. [102]

    Theseus: A library for differentiable non- linear optimization,

    L. Pineda, T. Fan, et al. , “Theseus: A library for differentiable non- linear optimization,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  95. [103]

    A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sola, J. Deray, et al. , “A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Nvblox: Gpu-accelerated in- cremental signed distance field mapping,

    A. Millane, H. Oleynikova, et al. , “Nvblox: Gpu-accelerated in- cremental signed distance field mapping,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , IEEE, 2024

    2024

  97. [105]

    The open motion planning library,

    I. A. Sucan, M. Moll, et al. , “The open motion planning library,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag. , vol. 19, no. 4, 2012

    2012

  98. [106]

    Bullet physics simulation,

    E. Coumans, “Bullet physics simulation,” in Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference, SIG- GRAPH, ACM, 2015

    2015

  99. [107]

    Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python,

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, et al., “Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python,” Nature methods, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 261–272, 2020

    2020

  100. [108]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

    2015

  101. [109]

    Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models,

    K. Sohn, H. Lee, et al. , “Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2015

    2015

  102. [110]

    The vendi score: A diversity evaluation metric for machine learning,

    D. Friedman and A. B. Dieng, “The vendi score: A diversity evaluation metric for machine learning,” Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. , 2023

    2023

  103. [111]

    A. Li, Z. Ding, et al. , Diffusolve: Diffusion-based solver for non- convex trajectory optimization, 2024

    2024

  104. [112]

    Constrained synthesis with pro- jected diffusion models,

    J. K. Christopher, S. Baek, et al. , “Constrained synthesis with pro- jected diffusion models,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  105. [113]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, et al. , JAX: Composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, version 0.3.13, 2018

    2018

  106. [114]

    Neural path planning: Fixed time, near-optimal path generation via oracle imitation,

    M. J. Bency, A. H. Qureshi, et al. , “Neural path planning: Fixed time, near-optimal path generation via oracle imitation,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , IEEE, 2019. BIOGRAPHIES Jo˜ao Carvalho is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Intel...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.